Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T12:33:00.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternative Approach to Analyzing the Interstitial Decay from the End of Range Damage During Millisecond Annealing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Renata Camillo-Castillo ,
Mark E Law  and
Kevin S Jones
Renata Camillo-Castillo
Affiliation:
racamill@us.ibm.com, IBM, SRDC, 1000 River Street, Essex Juunction, VT, 05452, United States
Mark E Law
Affiliation:
law@tec.ufl.edu, University of Florida, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Gainesville, FL, 32611, United States
Kevin S Jones
Affiliation:
kjones@eng.ufl.edu, University of Florida, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Gainesville, FL, 32611, United States
Get access

Abstract

Flash-assist Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP) presents an opportunity to investigate annealing time and temperature regimes which were previously not accessible with conventional annealing techniques such as Rapid Thermal Annealing. This provides a unique opportunity to explore the early stages of the End of Range (EOR) damage evolution and also to examine how the damage evolves during the high temperature portion of the temperature profile. However, the nature of the Flash-assist RTP makes it is extremely difficult to reasonably compare it to alternative annealing techniques, largely because the annealing time at a given temperature is dictated by the FWHM of the radiation pulse. The FWHM for current flash tools vary between 0.85 and 1.38 milliseconds, which is three orders of magnitude smaller to that required for a RTA to achieve similar temperatures. Traditionally, the kinetics of the extended defects has been studied by time dependent studies utilizing isothermal anneals; in which specific defect structures could be isolated. The characteristics of Flash-assist RTP do not allow for such investigations in which the EOR defect evolution could be closely tracked with time. Since the annealing time at the target temperature for the Flash-assist RTP is essentially fixed to very small times on the order of milliseconds, isochronal anneals are a logical experimental approach to temperature dependent studies. This fact presents a challenge in the data analysis and comparison. Another feature of Flash-assist RTP which makes the analysis complex is the ramp time relative to the dwell time spent at the peak fRTP temperature. As the flash anneal temperature is increased the total ramp time can exceed the dwell time at the peak temperature, which may play a significantly larger role in dictating the final material properties. The inherent characteristics of Flash-assist RTP have consequently required the development of another approach to analyzing the attainable experimental data, such that a meaningful comparison could be made to past studies. The adopted analysis entails the selection of a reference anneal, from which the decay in the trapped interstitial density can be tracked with the flash anneal temperature, allowing for the kinetics of the interstitial decay to be extracted.

Keywords

annealingdefectsion-implantation
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1070: Symposium E – Doping Engineering for Front-End Processing , 2008 , 1070-E06-09
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. Available: http://ublic.itrs.net/Google Scholar
2. Camm, D. M., Lojek, B., Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Advanced Thermal Processing of Semiconductors (RTP 1994), p.259.Google Scholar
3. Stuart, G.C., Camm, D.M., Cibere, J., Kaludjercic, L., Kervin, S.L., Lu, B., McDonnell, K.J., Tam, N.. 10th IEEE International Conferenceof Advanced Thermal Processing of Semiconductors, pg. 77 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Bonafos, C., Omri, M., Mauduit, B. de, BenAssayag, G., Claverie, A., Alquier, D. Martinez, A., Mathiot, D., J. Appl. Phys. 82, 2855 (1997)Google Scholar
5. Bharatan, S., Desrouches, J., and Jones, K. S., Materials and Process Characterization of Ion Implantation, Vol. 4, p. 222. (Ion Beam, 1997).Google Scholar
6. Jones, K.S., Prussin, S., and Weber, E. R., Appl. Phys. A 45, 1 (1988).Google Scholar
7. Benton, J.L., Libertino, S., Kringhoj, P., Eaglesham, D. J. and Poate, J. M., J. Appl. Phys. 82 (1), 120 (1997).Google Scholar
8. Coffa, S., Libertino, S., Spinella, C., Appl. Phys. Lett, 76(3), 321 (2000).Google Scholar
9. Libertino, S., Benton, J. L., Coffa, S., and Eaglesham, D. J., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 504, 3, (1998).Google Scholar
10. Eaglesham, D.J., Stolk, P. A., Gossmann, H.-J., and Poate, J. M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 65 (18) (1994).Google Scholar
11. Stolk, P.A., Gossmann, H.-J., Eaglesham, D. J., Jacobson, D. C., Rafferty, C. S., Gilmer, G. H., Jaraŕz, M., Poate, J. M., Luftman, H. S., Haynes, T. E., J. Appl. Phys. 81 (9), (1997).Google Scholar
12. Pan, G.Z., Tu, K.N., Prussin, A., J. Appl. Phys. 71(5), 659, (1997).Google Scholar
13. Li, J. and Jones, K.S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 73 (25), (1998).Google Scholar
14. Keys, P.. PhD. Dissertation, Department of Materials Science and Engineering. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (2001).Google Scholar
15. Kim, J., Wilkins, J. W., Khan, F. S., and Canning, A., Phys. Rev. B 40, 10351 (1989).Google Scholar
16. Gilmer, G. H., Rubia, T. Diaz de la, Stock, D. M. and Jaraiz, M., Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 102, 247 (1995).Google Scholar
17. Cowern, N.E.B., Mannino, G., Stolk, P. A., Roozeboom, F., Huizing, H. G. A., Berkum, J. G. M. van, Cristiano, F., Claverie, A., Jaraŕz, M., Phys. Rev. Letts. 82 (22), 4460 (1999).Google Scholar
18. Chichkine, M. P., Souza, M. M. De, and Narayanan, E. M. Sankara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 085501 (2002).Google Scholar
19. Souza, M.M. De, Chichkine, M.P., Narayanan, E.M. Sankara, Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. N0. 610, B11.3.1, (2000).Google Scholar
20. Claverie, A., Colombeau, B., Cristiano, F., Altibelli, A., Bonafos, C., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 669, J9.4 (2001).Google Scholar
21. Claverie, A., Colombeau, B., Cristiano, F., Altibelli, A., Bonafos, C., Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 186 (1-4), 281 (2002).Google Scholar
22. Robertson, L.S., Jones, K.S., Rubin, L.M., Jackson, J., J. Appl. Phys. 87(6), 2910 (2000).Google Scholar
23. Gutierrez, A.F., M.S. Thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida: Gainesville (2001)Google Scholar
24. King, A.C.. M.S. Thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville FL (2003).Google Scholar
25. King, A.C., Gutierrez, A. F., Saavedra, A. F., Jones, K. S. and Downey, D. F., J. Appl. Phys. 93(5), 2449 (2003).Google Scholar
26. Seidel, T.E., Lischerner, D.J., Pai, C.S., Knoell, R.V., Maher, D.M., Jacobson, D.C., Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. B 7/8, 251, (1985).Google Scholar
27. Avci, I.. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. University of Florida. (2002)Google Scholar
28. Law, M. E., Haddara, Y. M., and Jones, K. S., J. Appl. Phys. 84, 3555 (1998).Google Scholar
29.FLOOPS, Mark Law, University of Florida, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department (2003).Google Scholar
30. Ural, A., Griffin, P. B., Plummer, J. D.. Appl. Phys. Lett., 79(26), 24, (2001).Google Scholar
31. Bracht, H., Haller, E.E., Clark-Phelps, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(2), 393, (1998).Google Scholar